|
|
sw/11/1315 (2.9) - brfm bridge radio, east end house, oak lane, minster, isle of sheppey
PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman, Chairman for the meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey and Joanne Hammond.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Day, Ms Doherty, Mr Bicknell, Mr Kenten and Mr Smith.
APOLOGY: Councillor Barnicott.
|
|
|
sw/11/0915 (2.1) - former hbc engineering site, power station road, minster, isle of sheppey
PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman, Chairman for the meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Joanne Hammond, Alun Millard (Development Planner, Kent County Council) and Jim Wilson.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Jackie Constable, Mr Goldsmith (Agent), Mr McLaughlin (The Redwood Partnership), Ms Moore, Mr Aldridge, Mr Day, Mr Hayes, Mr Gowan and Mr Jones.
APOLOGY: Councillor Barnicott.
|
|
|
sw/11/1026 (2.3) - 183 ufton lane, sittingbourne
PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman, Chairman for the meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Derek Conway, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ghlin Whelan, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Philippa Davies and Ross McCardle.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Hughes (Agent), Mr Bailey (Architect), Mr and Mrs Day, Mr and Mrs Fullager, Mr Lusted and Mrs Snelling (local residents).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Mick Constable.
|
|
|
sw/11/0821 (3.3) - 39 abbeyfields, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman, Chairman for the meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson and Pat Sandle.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies and Claire Dethier.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr and Mrs Fuller (Applicants).
APOLOGIES: Councillors Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.
|
|
454
|
declarations of interest
No interests were declared.
|
|
455
|
sw/11/1315 (2.9) - brfm bridge radio, east end house, oak lane, minster, isle of sheppey
The Area Planning Officer outlined the application for the siting of a radio mast and broadcasting unit.
Members of the public made the following comments: the radio station should be sited within the Town Centre to improve accessibility for members of the public; the site was particularly difficult for disabled people to access, which did not comply with the need to consider equality and diversity; the radio station was a fantastic facility for the community but this site was not suitable or fit for use; the location of the mast at this site was not necessary as there were other locations the mast could be situated, which would also ensure a good signal in transmission.
A member of the public spoke in support of the application advising that the radio station was an open house project for the benefit of the community; the access was adequate; disabled people had visited the station with no difficulties; and the radio station had received no opposition to the location of the site.
Members then toured the site with the Area Planning Officer.
|
|
456
|
sw/11/0915 (2.1) - former hbc engineering site, power station road, minster, isle of sheppey
The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site to provide a foodstore (Class A1), alterations to existing access, car parking, petrol filling station and associated works. He outlined the application as set out in the report and reminded Members that five letters of objection had been received which referred, in particular, to issues of traffic and flooding. Four letters raising no concern or in support of the proposal had also been received.
He advised that Kent Highway Services and Swale Borough Council's Environmental Health Team had raised no objection to the application. The application was subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and would also need to be referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.
He also explained the reasoning behind the proposed off-site highway works, and stated that the option of a signalised junction at the Power Station Road / Halfway Road junction had been considered but discounted on technical grounds.
Mr Goldsmith (Agent, Nathanial Lichfield and Partners) advised that the application was for a Sainsbury's food store. He considered that the proposal met the needs of the Council's Swale Retail and Town Centre Study 2010; it would be well located and would make good use of a brownfield site. He advised that the site had been previously marketed for industrial use and no interest had been received. He considered the proposal would benefit the community by creating approximately 400 new jobs and meeting a community need for a food store which would be more accessible for residents on the eastern end of the Island. Sustainability had formed an important part of the design and the applicants proposed to meet 20 per cent of their energy needs on-site from renewable sources.
Mr McLaughlin (Transport Consultant, The Redwood Partnership) provided a brief overview of the traffic assessment and the proposals for the road layout into the site. He advised that any use of the site would generate additional traffic but a large proportion of the traffic to the new store would have travelled to Tesco previously. He explained that a contribution to a bus service to the store would form part of the Section 106 agreement.
A Member asked why traffic lights were not being considered rather than a mini-roundabout. The Development Planner (Kent County Council) explained that traffic lights would not have been physically possible due to land availability at the junction. He also advised that there were no proposals to connect Power Station Road to Scrapsgate Road and he would be concerned that this would create a rat-run.
Members of the public made the following comments: the junction of Halfway Road and Power Station Road was already busy and this would make the situation worse; concern about lorries and petrol tankers so close to residential properties; problems with drivers parking on the footpaths; road was dangerous for pedestrians; issues with poor drainage; the mini roundabout was insufficient and traffic lights would be preferable.
The following comments were also made in support of the proposal: a food store would create much needed local jobs; the proposal was preferable to residential housing on the site; the food store would address a community need and create competition for existing food stores on the Island.
A Member asked if the traffic assessment had taken into account the size of some of the vehicles accessing the site. The Development Planner confirmed that a swept path analysis had been undertaken to ensure lorries and HGVs could manoeuvre into Power Station Road and into the site itself. He also advised that the next stage would be to consider a detailed design for the mini-roundabout. The design would be subject to a technical audit which would also consider signage on the road.
A Member asked if there were proposals for other outlets within the food store, such as a chemist, as this could have an impact on the High Street. The Major Projects Officer explained that it would form a condition of the application that any additional kiosk units would require planning permission as it was recognised that these could impact upon the vitality and viability of existing High Street outlets, particularly those at Sheerness.
Members then walked Power Station Road and viewed the existing mini-roundabout with Officers.
|
|
457
|
sw/11/1026 (2.3) - 183 ufton lane, sittingbourne
The Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of a detached four bedroom chalet bungalow on land forming part of the rear gardens to 183 and 185 Ufton Lane. He explained that the proposed bungalow would be positioned 13.5 metres from the rear wall of 183 and 185 and 8.5 metres from the flank wall of Cedar Bungalow. The dimensions of the property would be 11.3 metres wide by 8.1 metres deep, with a ridge height of 6.5 metres. The proposed property was in the built up area and would not be contrary to policies of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008. The Planner advised that trees and landscaping would reduce the impact of overlooking to adjoining properties.
The Planner explained that the proposed bungalow would provide four bedrooms, two bedrooms would have dormer windows to the front and one to the back, and one of the bedrooms would be on the ground floor. There would be parking and turning space to the front and side of the new dwelling and a 12 metre deep garden. A new vehicular access would be provided off the existing drive.
The Planner reported that Kent Highway Services, the Head of Service Delivery and Southern Water had raised no objection to the proposal.
He reminded Members that five letters of objection had been received which had been summarised in the report.
The Agent advised that the footprint of the proposal was similar to surrounding properties and the orientation had been designed to comply with policy and reduce the impact on neighbouring properties.
A Ward Member did not oppose the principal of the proposal but raised the following concerns: the design could lead to overlooking; cables could affect the growth of new trees; deciduous trees would result in overlooking in the autumn/winter; and a bungalow would be a more suitable option.
In response, the Agent reported that the pre-application advice had advised that a chalet bungalow would be appropriate for the site. She considered that potential overlooking to no. 1 West Ridge could be addressed by augmenting additional planting with the evergreen screen that was presently in place.
Local residents raised the following points: the outbuildings that could have prevented overlooking had been removed; there were a couple of blind spots along the access route; overlooking in relation to the dormer windows and the need for trees to address this; the proposal was too large for the site; the accumulative effect of additional traffic on the site; and conditions should be added to ensure no further development on the site, no burning of waste on the site during development, contractor parking to be provided on site during development and measures to prevent mud being deposited on the highway.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
|
458
|
sw/11/0821 (3.3) - 39 abbeyfields, faversham
The Senior Planner introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the demolition of the existing house and outbuildings, and the conversion of the existing engine house with a two storey extension to form a new residential dwelling. The extension would measure 16 metres by 8.4 metres and the existing engine house would be incorporated into a large open plan living, dining and kitchen area. Garaging would be located under an earth bund and a new access point to the site would be added.
The Senior Planner advised that the Agent had stated that the existing industrial building was in a dangerous state of repair and not suitable for employment use; the building stands in the residential curtilage; it was more economically viable to demolish the engine shed, rather than incorporate it into the extension and the development would allow the restoration and preservation of the engine shed.
Faversham Town Council raised no objection and welcomed the design, and the decrease in the number of buildings on the site. The Head of Service Delivery raised concern with possible contamination and suggested a condition be added to address this. The Faversham Society considered the proposal should be refused as the site was prominent, the proposal was alien and the existing cottages should not be lost.
The Senior Planner reminded Members that they needed to consider the re-use of a rural building, whether it was a modest replacement of what was currently there, its impact and whether there was an alternative employment use for the building.
The Applicant advised that if the engine shed was not improved it would need to be demolished.
Members then toured the site with Officers.
|
